markdown do not support Strikethrough ?

[Chunlin Zhang]

I am using indefero,and its wiki use markdown as wiki syntax,and I found that
markdown do not support Strikethrough ?
Thanks!

___
Markdown-Discuss mailing list
Markdown-Discuss@six.pairlist.net
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/markdown-discuss

Re: markdown do not support Strikethrough ?

[David Chambers]

 and  have been deprecated since HTML 4.01. What HTML would you
expect Markdown to generate? Something like…

This is wrong. This is right.

or…

This is wrong. This is right.

But the above should really make use of  as well…

This is wrong. This is right.

This is well and truly beyond the scope of Markdown. Don't forget that HTML
is a subset of Markdown, so any time you want to do something without
corresponding Markdown syntax you can simply use HTML. So, you could have
something like this…

* first list item
* second list item
* fifth third list item

which'd convert to…


first list item
second list item
fifth third list item


David


On 22 July 2010 22:11, Chunlin Zhang  wrote:

> I am using indefero,and its wiki use markdown as wiki syntax,and I found
> that
> markdown do not support Strikethrough ?
> Thanks!
>
> ___
> Markdown-Discuss mailing list
> Markdown-Discuss@six.pairlist.net
> http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/markdown-discuss
>
___
Markdown-Discuss mailing list
Markdown-Discuss@six.pairlist.net
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/markdown-discuss

Re: markdown do not support Strikethrough ?

[david parsons]

> I am using indefero,and its wiki use markdown as wiki syntax,and I found that
> markdown do not support Strikethrough ?

I think it would be difficult to find some syntax that's more
comprehensible than doing inline html markup for strikethrough.

*emphasis* is one thing, because there's a long tradition of using
underscores and stars for emphasis, but there's not anything there
except for ^H and ^W for strikethrough, and that's not widely enough
used to make sense to a lot of people.


-david parsons
___
Markdown-Discuss mailing list
Markdown-Discuss@six.pairlist.net
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/markdown-discuss

Re: markdown do not support Strikethrough ?

[Chunlin Zhang]

David Chambers  gmail.com> writes:

>     * first list item
>     * second list item
>     * fifth third list item
I tested in indefero wiki and found that both  and  not
work,or I should report issue to indefero.

Thanks.

___
Markdown-Discuss mailing list
Markdown-Discuss@six.pairlist.net
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/markdown-discuss

Re: markdown do not support Strikethrough ?

[David Chambers]

It may not allow raw HTML to be used. This is a limitation imposed by the
implementation, not by Markdown itself.


On 23 July 2010 13:36, Chunlin Zhang  wrote:

> David Chambers  gmail.com> writes:
>
> > * first list item
> > * second list item
> > * fifth third list item
> I tested in indefero wiki and found that both  and 
> not
> work,or I should report issue to indefero.
>
> Thanks.
>
> ___
> Markdown-Discuss mailing list
> Markdown-Discuss@six.pairlist.net
> http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/markdown-discuss
>
___
Markdown-Discuss mailing list
Markdown-Discuss@six.pairlist.net
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/markdown-discuss

Re: markdown do not support Strikethrough ?

[Arno Hautala]

On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 17:19, david parsons  wrote:
>
>    I think it would be difficult to find some syntax that's more
>    comprehensible than doing inline html markup for strikethrough.

I could have sworn that this was done using dashes.  -Apparently that's not so.-


-- 
arno  s  hautala    /-|   a...@alum.wpi.edu

pgp eabb6fe6 d47c500f b2458f5d a7cc7abb f81c4e00
___
Markdown-Discuss mailing list
Markdown-Discuss@six.pairlist.net
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/markdown-discuss

Re: markdown do not support Strikethrough ?

[david parsons]

Arno Hautala  wrote:
>
>>I wrote:
>>
>>  I think it would be difficult to find some syntax that's more
>>  comprehensible than doing inline html markup for strikethrough.
>
>I could have sworn that this was done using dashes.
>-Apparently that's not so.-

   But how do would you visually differentiate that markup from
   regular hyphens in text?   (There are already cases -- the lowly
   underscore springs to mind -- where the reference markdown does
   the non-obvious thing.)


   -david parsons

___
Markdown-Discuss mailing list
Markdown-Discuss@six.pairlist.net
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/markdown-discuss

Re: markdown do not support Strikethrough ?

[Arno Hautala]

On Fri, Jul 23, 2010 at 03:27, david parsons  wrote:
> Arno Hautala  wrote:
>>
>>I could have sworn that this was done using dashes.
>>-Apparently that's not so.-
>
>   But how do would you visually differentiate that markup from
>   regular hyphens in text?   (There are already cases -- the lowly
>   underscore springs to mind -- where the reference markdown does
>   the non-obvious thing.)

Agreed.  How common is it to actually want to strike out text anyway?
I've clearly not done it much; thinking a non-existent feature was the
standard.
It's just not something that's useful or common enough to warrant
inclusion, especially when using actual HTML is a simple and effective
solution.


-- 
arno  s  hautala    /-|   a...@alum.wpi.edu

pgp eabb6fe6 d47c500f b2458f5d a7cc7abb f81c4e00
___
Markdown-Discuss mailing list
Markdown-Discuss@six.pairlist.net
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/markdown-discuss

Re: markdown do not support Strikethrough ?

[John MacFarlane]

+++ Arno Hautala [Jul 23 10 07:42 ]:
> On Fri, Jul 23, 2010 at 03:27, david parsons  wrote:
> > Arno Hautala  wrote:
> >>
> >>I could have sworn that this was done using dashes.
> >>-Apparently that's not so.-
> >
> >   But how do would you visually differentiate that markup from
> >   regular hyphens in text?   (There are already cases -- the lowly
> >   underscore springs to mind -- where the reference markdown does
> >   the non-obvious thing.)
> 
> Agreed.  How common is it to actually want to strike out text anyway?
> I've clearly not done it much; thinking a non-existent feature was the
> standard.
> It's just not something that's useful or common enough to warrant
> inclusion, especially when using actual HTML is a simple and effective
> solution.

Pandoc supports strikethrough with ~~this syntax.~~

I have some regrets about the choice, because I don't think
"strikeout" is a particularly natural interpretation of this markup.
But using HTML isn't a great solution for pandoc, which supports many
output formats.

John
___
Markdown-Discuss mailing list
Markdown-Discuss@six.pairlist.net
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/markdown-discuss

Re: markdown do not support Strikethrough ?

[Dan Dascalescu]

On MojoMojo, which also uses Markdown, we use the  tag. And
example of how that's rendered is at
http://wiki.dandascalescu.com/howtos/android#Backup_.2F_sync

--
Dan
http://wiki.dandascalescu.com

On Fri, Jul 23, 2010 at 08:45, John MacFarlane  wrote:
> +++ Arno Hautala [Jul 23 10 07:42 ]:
>> On Fri, Jul 23, 2010 at 03:27, david parsons  
>> wrote:
>> > Arno Hautala  wrote:
>> >>
>> >>I could have sworn that this was done using dashes.
>> >>-Apparently that's not so.-
>> >
>> >   But how do would you visually differentiate that markup from
>> >   regular hyphens in text?   (There are already cases -- the lowly
>> >   underscore springs to mind -- where the reference markdown does
>> >   the non-obvious thing.)
>>
>> Agreed.  How common is it to actually want to strike out text anyway?
>> I've clearly not done it much; thinking a non-existent feature was the
>> standard.
>> It's just not something that's useful or common enough to warrant
>> inclusion, especially when using actual HTML is a simple and effective
>> solution.
>
> Pandoc supports strikethrough with ~~this syntax.~~
>
> I have some regrets about the choice, because I don't think
> "strikeout" is a particularly natural interpretation of this markup.
> But using HTML isn't a great solution for pandoc, which supports many
> output formats.
>
> John
> ___
> Markdown-Discuss mailing list
> Markdown-Discuss@six.pairlist.net
> http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/markdown-discuss
>
___
Markdown-Discuss mailing list
Markdown-Discuss@six.pairlist.net
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/markdown-discuss

Re: markdown do not support Strikethrough ?

[Aristotle Pagaltzis]

* John MacFarlane  [2010-07-23 17:50]:
> But using HTML isn't a great solution for pandoc, which
> supports many output formats.

IMO separating Markdown from HTML is the wrong approach. Likewise
everyone who filters out `` but allows asterisks for emphasis
is doing it wrong.

Markdown is an alternative syntax for HTML. The right thing to
do with a Markdown document is convert it to regular HTML, *then*
optionally apply a tag white list, *then* optionally convert this
HTML (subset) document to other formats. If there are HTML tags
you cannot (easily) support in your target formats, just omit
them from your supported subset of HTML. That way you support
real Markdown, not a crippled Markdown-lookalike syntax.

Regards,
-- 
Aristotle Pagaltzis // 
___
Markdown-Discuss mailing list
Markdown-Discuss@six.pairlist.net
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/markdown-discuss

Re: markdown do not support Strikethrough ?

[John MacFarlane]

+++ Aristotle Pagaltzis [Jul 24 10 20:14 ]:
> * John MacFarlane  [2010-07-23 17:50]:
> > But using HTML isn't a great solution for pandoc, which
> > supports many output formats.
> 
> IMO separating Markdown from HTML is the wrong approach. Likewise
> everyone who filters out `` but allows asterisks for emphasis
> is doing it wrong.
> 
> Markdown is an alternative syntax for HTML. The right thing to
> do with a Markdown document is convert it to regular HTML, *then*
> optionally apply a tag white list, *then* optionally convert this
> HTML (subset) document to other formats. If there are HTML tags
> you cannot (easily) support in your target formats, just omit
> them from your supported subset of HTML. That way you support
> real Markdown, not a crippled Markdown-lookalike syntax.

There are two issue here, really.

1)  Should `hi` and `*hi*` be parsed to the same intermediate
representation?

2)  Should this representation be HTML?

I think the answer to 1 is probably yes.  But I don't see any strong
reason to answer yes to 2. Personally, I'd rather have a nice Haskell
data structure I can manipulate simply and convert to any format I like.
And I want to represent some things that don't have a real HTML
counterpart (footnotes, mathematical formulas, inline quotations).

Anyway, my original point was not that pandoc *couldn't* have used the
syntax `hi` for strikeout, no matter what the output format. It
could, of course. The point was that it might seem odd and unnatural for
people who are primarily writing for other output formats to have to use
HTML in their documents.

John

___
Markdown-Discuss mailing list
Markdown-Discuss@six.pairlist.net
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/markdown-discuss